A Level Psychology OCR Practice Exam

Why might passengers on the train have been more likely to help, as suggested by Piliavin's explanation of findings?

1. They felt a strong sense of obligation

2. It was less effort for them to help

3. They were waiting for a train delay

4. They were familiar with the victim

The correct answer is: It was less effort for them to help

The suggestion that passengers on the train might have been more likely to help aligns with the concept of the costs and benefits associated with helping behavior, as discussed by Piliavin in his studies on bystander intervention. Particularly, passengers might perceive helping as requiring less effort compared to the social pressure or guilt associated with inaction in an emergency. When the situation arises where someone is in distress, such as in Piliavin's studies involving a man who collapsed on the subway, observers may quickly assess their involvement. If helping someone appears to involve minimal inconvenience or disruption, they may be more inclined to take action. This ties into the idea of "costs" in the decision-making process; if the perceived cost of helping is low, individuals are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior. In contrast, other options like feeling a strong sense of obligation or being familiar with the victim could imply a more emotional or relational quality to the helping behavior that wasn't specifically highlighted in Piliavin's findings, which focused more on situational factors and perceptions of cost. Waiting for a train delay isn't directly relevant to the motivation behind helping behaviors in the emergency context Piliavin examined. Thus, understanding the dynamics of perceived effort and convenience plays a crucial role in explaining why passengers on